Lawyers for Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion clashed with her accuser in Superior Court Monday, as Elias Hazineh took the stand to defend allegations he breached the statutory limitation period for launching his conflict-of-interest action.

At the heart of the dispute is a 2010 National Post exclusive, which first revealed the conflict allegations now before the court. If the mayor’s lawyers are successful in arguing Mr. Hazineh read that article, the whole case could be tossed, because he filed his conflict application in late 2011 — well outside the six-week timeframe that begins ticking once an applicant learns of a possible conflict, Ms. McCallion’s lawyers contend.

“The elector was well aware of the necessary facts well before the six-week limitation,” said lawyer Freya Kristjanson, who represents the mayor. “[The case] should be dismissed on this basis alone.”

The case against the mayor dates back to a 2007 Peel Regional council vote, in which Ms. McCallion allegedly violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by supporting a development bylaw that could have saved her son $11-million on a downtown hotel project.

In arguing the case should be tossed, the mayor’s lawyers relied heavily on the July 2010 Post article, which included commentary from former councillor Carolyn Parrish, a close friend of Mr. Hazineh and a long-time nemesis of the mayor. If Mr. Hazineh is not a “straw man” for Ms. Parrish, “they are at least co-venturers on this application,” said the mayor’s co-counsel, Elizabeth McIntyre.

During a tense and combative day on the stand, however, Mr. Hazineh vehemently denied having read the article in question — despite working on Ms. Parrish’s failed re-election campaign around the time it was published.

“I have not seen it, period… I do not read the National Post,” Mr. Hazineh said, noting he filed his conflict action within the requisite six-week window after reading a legal opinion in late 2011 that cited the alleged conflict.

Asked whether it was possible Ms. Parrish showed him the earlier Post article shortly after its publication, Mr. Hazineh said he had no recollection of that, but added: “If I said it’s impossible, I’d be lying.”

There was a lot of doubt

His testimony, Ms. McIntyre suggested, stands in jarring contrast to the evidence Mr. Hazineh gave during a pre-hearing cross-examination. Asked this past January whether he had read the Post article at the time of its publication, Mr. Hazineh replied: “I’m sure I did.”

He added that the picture looked “familiar,” so he “probably read it.”

On Monday, he indicated he had just been guessing.

“I still had my hesitation… There was a lot of doubt,” Mr. Hazineh testified.

“I had a perfect explanation for you and it’s the truth,” Mr. Hazineh said.

Even if Mr. Hazineh did read the article, his lawyer, Thomas Richardson, argues it would not have affixed him with all the necessary knowledge for a conflict application because “speculation in the newspaper” cannot provide the “degree of certainty” required.